Go to THE PROPHET
- Add a comment
- Go to THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN DEBATE IS BECOMING HIGHLY UNBALANCED TO ONE SIDE
"intelligent design" is a spin phrase developed by politicians
because the term "creationism" turned people off. The goal was to get conservatives elected to school boards, city councils, state and national offices, and still get people who believe in the scientific method to vote for them. So this debate reminds me a bit of those old theologans who argued whether or not an angel could dance on the point of a needle.
posted by
Pat_B
on June 11, 2006 at 3:07 PM
| link to this | reply
janeybaby
there is a lot to bediscovered.
but the evidence as a whole supports the theory of evolution
50 years ago, there were many missing links in the human line
however, since then, quite a few have been discovered.
we're looking far back in time here -- things that have been destroyed -- time and catastrophe and other natural forces have erased much of the paleontological evbidence.
I think it's a miracle of god that we have the evidence that we do.
posted by
Xeno-x
on June 10, 2006 at 3:43 PM
| link to this | reply
excuse me, xenox, but any scientist will acknowledge that
there ARE many missing links with evolution.
That is a given.
To think otherwise is complete idiocy.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on June 10, 2006 at 3:21 PM
| link to this | reply
redwood
read my latest GOD AS THE UNIVERSE AS AN ORGANISM
posted by
Xeno-x
on June 8, 2006 at 6:01 AM
| link to this | reply
xeno-x while we are on the subject.
You guys are supposed to be the "vanguards of free thinking". One of the other bloggers wrote a post that had a title something like "Where do believers get off trying to use facts to prove anything". I guess that the gist of this title is supposed to be that objectivity is the exclusive domain of atheists and agnostics. Subjectivity is supposed to be the exclusive domain of us "religious dummies". And never the twain shall meet, right? The reason why I think the way I do has a lot to do with my training as an engineer. I spent a lot of years doing things like surveying land, desiging roads and bridges,drainage structures, that kind of stuff. Not in the flat lands either, in moutains, swamps, etc. You have to be good in trigonometry, geometry, load calculations, horizontal and vertical curve formulas, etc., etc. You have to be able to think objectively. Something else you have to be able to do is to think beyond mathematical formulas. The guys who are strict objective thinkers end up costing the agency or the company they work for nothing but money when it comes time for subjective reasoning to be applied. They don't see errors in a set of plans until after the fact. They don't see possible money saving possibilities (like grade changes which could provide a better balance for cut and fill quantities) until it is too late and the damage in time and money has already been inflicted. This is probably getting to be boring (if you bother to read this at all). The point I am trying to make is that perhaps there is room for both objectivity and subjectivity in the sciences of origins, just like there is in engineering. As you well know I am not a paleantologist. Just the same, I see strict Evolutioinism as nothing hard core objective reasoning with no room for subjectivity. It is possible that strict Creationism is too subjective with not ojectivity. Intelligent design tries to strike a balance between the two. I am going to be honest. I actually lean more toward Creationism in my own personal convictions. I am not really all that gung-ho about either ID or evolution. It is just that I realize that the "scientific method" should be given due respect in the class room. Like Einstein said "imagination is more important than knowledge". He was a scientist, wasn't he?
posted by
redwood
on June 8, 2006 at 5:50 AM
| link to this | reply
redwood
actually?
intelligent design lies outside the discoveries of science.
janesopinion
state your evidence -- that's all i have to say
i am a person whose faith is of evidence.
posted by
Xeno-x
on June 8, 2006 at 5:13 AM
| link to this | reply
xeno-x Is the theory of relativity still relevant?
Einstein emphasized that "all frames of reference in the world are relative, not absolute. Accordingly, the universe can not be an absolute in itself, and therefore can have no independent or absolute existence. Since it could not produce itself, it must be in existence due to to the omnipotence of an external Creator, who is Himself its absolute standard". This school of thought also insists that cause must be greater than the effect, and that the Creator is greater than the creation. And, yes I know, Einstein had no time for any organized religion.
As I understand it, Intelligent Design does not necessarily argue in favor of the Bible (as does strict Creationism), nor does it necessarily argue against Evolutionsim (as is the case with Creationism). All that IDers are trying to imply is that maybe, just maybe, there is a Creator involved in all of this.
As a result, Intelligent Design people receive flack from both sides, from strict secularists because they are "too religious", and also from strict Creationists because they are "not religious enough".
Is it possible that the real reason why Intelligent Design people catch hell from everybody is because they offer the most balanced approach?
posted by
redwood
on June 7, 2006 at 9:54 PM
| link to this | reply
16 billion to zero?
You must be the guy who counted the ballots in Washington state's 2004 Governor election.
posted by
redwood
on June 7, 2006 at 8:23 PM
| link to this | reply
yeah, and 16 billion missing links, to boot.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on June 7, 2006 at 7:35 PM
| link to this | reply